Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Buckxell

Prowl - could they take a global approach?

Recommended Posts

When I heard they were focusing on individual matches, my mind immediately to boxing. Boxing, compared to its heyday, is virtually dead in the US. MMA has taken over. But boxing is still super successful due to its global fan base.

 

Could Prowl do something similar? Create super matches with the worlds best (not just focus on US) and somehow pull fan bases from all over the world. Just thinking big picture, it would be huge if they could tap into Iran and Russia fans from a pay per view perspective. Make their revenue not primarily from the fans in the seats, but the pay per view revenue. Not sure if logistically this would be possible, but perhaps that's where they see opportunity?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think a tournament system modeled after Golf/Tennis is the best way to go. It makes sense to me to mimic the two most popular individual sports in the world.

 

In order for you to follow their model, you have to have multi day events.  Their events are much longer for each individual athlete.

 

We will see how the new multi-day weigh-ins go over. 

 

 

Of course, it is tough to compete against UUW events, which is what any promotion or league will be doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason why tournament organizers could not hold single-day -- even single weight -- competitions and still follow the tennis model.  

 

All you need to follow the tennis model is a tournament series and points awarded for placement.  In tennis, the points last for a year, so a couple of things matter: current world #1, year-end world #1, and the winner of the four Grand Slams.  The "ATP Finals" is an equivalent to our World Championships, but it's a small tournament with less prestige than the Grand Slams.

 

From the point of view of both athletes and fans, I think it is better to have 4 world championships per year instead of 1.  

 

Tennis also allows competitors to compete at the top tournaments through a qualifying system, rather than limiting the tournaments to one competitor per country.  I'm confident most (all?) athletes would prefer this.  Tennis still has the Olympics every 4 years, following the Olympic rules with limits on the number of competitors.

 

The ATP tour counts points earned at the Grand Slams and limits the total number of tournaments where the players can earn points, which encourages them to play throughout the year, but prevents them from gaming the system by gaining a huge number of points at a lot of small tournaments by competing every week.

 

To my mind, this is an ideal model for running a year-round individual sport.  One problem would be getting tournament organizers on the same page.  The big problem is awarding enough prize money to get wrestlers to actually compete on the circuit.  You would have to have backers that are willing to lose money on this for a long time before it develops an audience.

 

Since all of the money in the sport is currently tied to funding for the Olympics, a serious model like the ATP tour is unlikely to emerge anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any reason why tournament organizers could not hold single-day -- even single weight -- competitions and still follow the tennis model.  

 

All you need to follow the tennis model is a tournament series and points awarded for placement.  

 

Wimbledon is currently being played.  They are on day 8 of 13.  It is a two week long tournament and that is part of what makes it great. 

 

#1 Seed for Men's Singles, Andy Murray, played on Day 1, Day 3, Day 5, Day 7, and Day 8 (today) where he was eliminated in the quarter-finals.

 

Part of the success of tennis and golf is the multi-day format.  You identify someone early in the tournament and can watch them later in the event.  There is build up.  The media has time to disseminate the information so that people know of any upsets or unexpected performances that will add drama so they can tune in.

 

In wrestling, with short, one day tournaments, you find out about an upset, often, after the subsequent matches have taken place which renders it all moot.

Edited by Pinnum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wimbledon is currently being played.  They are on day 8 of 13.  It is a two week long tournament and that is part of what makes it great. 

 

#1 Seed for Men's Singles, Andy Murray, played on Day 1, Day 3, Day 5, Day 7, and Day 8 (today) where he was eliminated in the quarter-finals.

 

Part of the success of tennis and golf is the multi-day format.  You identify someone early in the tournament and can watch them later in the event.  There is build up.  The media has time to disseminate the information so that people know of any upsets or unexpected performances that will add drama so they can tune in.

 

In wrestling, with short, one day tournaments, you find out about an upset, often, after the subsequent matches have taken place which renders it all moot.

 

Wrestling matches are also 6 min long. A tennis match can last several hours. Not an apples to apples comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrestling matches are also 6 min long. A tennis match can last several hours. Not an apples to apples comparison.

 

Same is true of MMA and fighters go up to a year between matches.

 

There is value in breaking up the time between matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference with your analogy to boxing/mma, from a pay per view perspective, is this. We could possibly see a Snyder vs Sadulaev match up (for example) 6-7 times over the course of the next 24 months. Worlds, World Cup, yargian. In boxing, with all that goes on with that sport, we're lucky if we get that matchup once, MAYBE twice. Not to mention the pay per view boxing match is for the world championship (as opposed to what amounts to an exhibition, all mayweather/mcgregor aside)....hence the pay per view.

Edited by Lurker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the point here is that you need to have time to hype matches, but there are many ways that this could be done.  Imagine that you have a world circuit where you only get points for placing at Grand Slam events.  Say you have a Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall cycle of Grand Slams.  Here's what a cycle could look like.

 

Month 1 & 2: Local qualifying tournaments all over the world

Month 3, week 1: Two Grand Slam tournaments on two different continents 

Month 3, week 4: The Gran Slam Finals on a third continent, pitting the winners of the two Grand Slam tournaments

 

This format would allow you to have a lot of small, fan- and athlete- friendly events, limit events for the top competitors (prior place winners need not qualify), and give you plenty of time to hype the finals.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference with your analogy to boxing/mma, from a pay per view perspective, is this. We could possibly see a Snyder vs Sadulaev match up (for example) 6-7 times over the course of the next 24 months. Worlds, World Cup, yargian. In boxing, with all that goes on with that sport, we're lucky if we get that matchup once, MAYBE twice. Not to mention the pay per view boxing match is for the world championship (as opposed to what amounts to an exhibition, all mayweather/mcgregor aside)....hence the pay per view.

Very good point. One could argue that why pay $50 for Snyder vs Sadulaev when you just watched it free via UWW stream.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very good point. One could argue that why pay $50 for Snyder vs Sadulaev when you just watched it free via UWW stream.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And another addendum to this is why would anyone pay anything to watch David Taylor or Tony Ramos wrestle somebody from the U.S. when the best match ups, such as Snyder vs Sadulaev, will all be at worlds (an event that I would pay to watch).  

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same is true of MMA and fighters go up to a year between matches.

 

There is value in breaking up the time between matches.

It's not reasonable to expect an MMA fighter to have multiple matches in a day. They can literally get their face smashed in. The two are not comparable. Furthermore a UFC fight is 3 5 min rounds.. Edited by BigTenFanboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The two are not comparable.

 

 

Any less comparable than Tennis or Golf?

 

Of course, they are different.  But you can't expect people to get excited about seeing the same match over and over again.  Spread them out.  Let people have a shorter attention span and consume wrestling in another manner.  Long days are not going to be successful at any level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any less comparable than Tennis or Golf?

 

Of course, they are different.  But you can't expect people to get excited about seeing the same match over and over again.  Spread them out.  Let people have a shorter attention span and consume wrestling in another manner.  Long days are not going to be successful at any level.

 

I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent, however the nature of a wrestling match is so small and short that it wouldn't work.

You would have to restructure a wrestling match to be somewhat like tennis where they wrestle sets of matches.

Maybe a best of 3 series in one sitting? First to win 2 full matches wins the entire match?

 

Then it starts getting hokey like the old freestyle rules where it was first to win 2 periods...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get what you're saying and agree to a certain extent, however the nature of a wrestling match is so small and short that it wouldn't work.

You would have to restructure a wrestling match to be somewhat like tennis where they wrestle sets of matches.

Maybe a best of 3 series in one sitting? First to win 2 full matches wins the entire match?

 

Then it starts getting hokey like the old freestyle rules where it was first to win 2 periods...

 

 

In the past, UWW tournaments have been all day, with a weight on one day, and they have been multiple day events. 

 

What I am proposing is not crazy, it is just wrestling one round a day.  You can even have every weight and every event wrestle every day if need be.

 

This is actually more in line with how the NCAA tournament does it.  Most open tournaments are 33 wrestler brackets and completed in one day but the NCAA does theirs over three days and on the champion side they don't wrestle more than once a session.

 

Spread out the event, shorten the sessions, and give more firmly scheduled times when people can tune in for the matches they want to see and then give them (and the media) time to talk about the next bout before it happens.

 

This isn't to say that every event needs to be run like this, but the world championships should, without a doubt, be run in this manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the past, UWW tournaments have been all day, with a weight on one day, and they have been multiple day events.

 

What I am proposing is not crazy, it is just wrestling one round a day. You can even have every weight and every event wrestle every day if need be.

 

This is actually more in line with how the NCAA tournament does it. Most open tournaments are 33 wrestler brackets and completed in one day but the NCAA does theirs over three days and on the champion side they don't wrestle more than once a session.

 

Spread out the event, shorten the sessions, and give more firmly scheduled times when people can tune in for the matches they want to see and then give them (and the media) time to talk about the next bout before it happens.

 

This isn't to say that every event needs to be run like this, but the world championships should, without a doubt, be run in this manner.

I like it. And speaking of this Prowl stuff... why couldn't UWW take the approach you mentioned, charge a viewing small viewing fee per round, hype up the rounds and the matches, and generate some revenue from around the world.... and then they could actually compensate their athletes?? That would be the best case scenario in my opinion. I would gladly pay $5 a round or whatever the price may be if it was presented well and I knew the proceeds would help compensate the athletes.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...